Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

nickm said:
The impression he gave in his first response was he was more concerned with giving the govt a hard time, rather the likely perpetrators of the attack. That’s fine if you are leading a 6th form debating team. It’s insufficent in a potential PM.

A question for you. What was the more authoritative response to the unfolding events? May’s first statement to parliament? Or Corbyn’s?
Click to expand...

That's not the impression I got. He gave the standard lip service, then raised a not unrelated and incredibly important issue. If Boris Johnson is playing tennis with Putin's friends for hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations, what weight do May's words have?

Who gave the most authoritative statement? The PM, by the very nature of her job title. Did it mean anything? Not at all.
 
nickm said:
It’s electability. Which Corbyn hasn’t got.
Click to expand...

.MP since 1983

.Won 2 leadership races with the biggest majority ever

.Help turn Labour into the biggest social democratic party in Europe

.Got Labour best result since 1997

.Biggest increased Labour vote since 1945

There are plenty of criticisms that can be said of Corbyn meaningless cliches is just pointless.
 
Sweet Square said:
.MP since 1983

.Won 2 leadership races with the biggest majority ever

.Help turn Labour into the biggest social democratic party in Europe

.Got Labour best result since 1997

.Biggest increased Labour vote since 1945

There are plenty of criticisms that can be said of Corbyn meaningless cliches is just pointless.
Click to expand...

All that and yet when the real test came, he still couldn’t beat the worst Tory govt in living memory. So I think I am entitled to my claim.
 
nickm said:
All that and yet when the real test came, he still couldn’t beat the worst Tory govt in living memory. So I think I am entitled to my claim.
Click to expand...
Considering where he was and all those haters predicting a Labour wipe out and a Tory majority. He did remarkably well.
 
nickm said:
All that and yet when the real test came, he still couldn’t beat the worst Tory govt in living memory. So I think I am entitled to my claim.
Click to expand...
Considering how a sizeable faction of the labour party have been undermining him from day one, and then you factor in UKIP's collapse with most of their votes going to the tories AND the media witch hunt also from day one, he's done a bloody good job of making the Labour party a genuine progressive alternative. Looking at the trajectory of Labour's increased appeal, the political galvanisation of young voters and the inevitable Tory self-implosion exacerbated by Brexit, then its ridiculous to suggest he's unelectable. And that's not taken into account his history of electoral successes in his 30 years in politics.

By your token Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were unelectable because they lost some key elections in their political careers preceding their presidential tenures against pretty unremarkable oppostion.
 
Smores said:
So basically you want the leader of the opposition to not oppose? To ignore the government's haste in favour of some rising bulldog soundbites?
Click to expand...
Being an oppositon leader doesn't mean he must oppose everything. I'd want the opposition to do what is best for the country, not try to point score.
 
ivaldo said:
Being an oppositon leader doesn't mean he must oppose everything. I'd want the opposition to do what is best for the country, not try to point score.
Click to expand...

Obviously in this case Russia did it but lets play out that they haven't. I don't think Corbyn trying to calm the goverment down and ensuring proper procedure will be looked back on badly do you?

I just fail to see what putting aside concerns is suppose to achieve. You honestly think Putin gives one feck what Corbyn does?
 
Smores said:
Obviously in this case Russia did it but lets play out that they haven't. I don't think Corbyn trying to calm the goverment down and ensuring proper procedure will be looked back on badly do you?

I just fail to see what putting aside concerns is suppose to achieve. You honestly think Putin gives one feck what Corbyn does?
Click to expand...
No I don't, it's Putin. Do you think Corbyn saying what he had is anything but damaging for international relations?
 
ivaldo said:
Being an oppositon leader doesn't mean he must oppose everything. I'd want the opposition to do what is best for the country, not try to point score.
Click to expand...
One of Corbyn top aids is Seamus Milne who has written a lot on the British secret service(Not to mention the secret service spied on Corbyn)so I image the standard line in the Corbyn office is to assume the British government is lying, which historical is a pretty good approach.
 
Sweet Square said:
One of Corbyn top aids is Seamus Milne who has written a lot on the British secret service(Not to mention the secret service spied on Corbyn)so I image the standard line in the Corbyn office is to assume the British government is lying, which historical is a pretty good approach.
Click to expand...
Let's just hope Corbyn never finds himself living at number 10 downing street then.
 



But let's pretend this isn't a problem because.....media.....and....Iraq....and...fecking Tories. Right?

I almost forgot: BLAIR!

Yup definitely not a problem. In fact I'm so confident it's not a problem that I'd lay a shiny penny on the majority of replies to this will point out it's wrong of me to see it as a problem.
 
Oscie said:



But let's pretend this isn't a problem because.....media.....and....Iraq....and...fecking Tories. Right?

I almost forgot: BLAIR!

Yup definitely not a problem. In fact I'm so confident it's not a problem that I'd lay a shiny penny on the majority of replies to this will point out it's wrong of me to see it as a problem.
Click to expand...

So Tory voters think labour and Corbyn are anti-Semitic? Shock horror. I never thought they would get that from reading the Sun and the Mail.
 
Oscie said:



But let's pretend this isn't a problem because.....media.....and....Iraq....and...fecking Tories. Right?

I almost forgot: BLAIR!

Yup definitely not a problem. In fact I'm so confident it's not a problem that I'd lay a shiny penny on the majority of replies to this will point out it's wrong of me to see it as a problem.
Click to expand...

If Corbyn shat gold you'd complain it was brown.
 
It probably is a fairly cynical vote winner that isn't needed for better off people within that bracket, but the Tories have been pulling the equivalent shit with old people for years and rarely get questioned on it. Probably a smart move to continue engaging the youth vote.
 
Bus Passes for U25s

As soon as a person pops up and says “how is that going to be paid for?” whatever opinion they might offer after that is almost certainly totally irrelevant

You CANNOT compare Government finances to your own finances in the sense that Macroeconomics is not ‘zero-sum’. It’s not like your household finances where you have a certain amount of money to allocate at the end of every month and a certain amount of outgoings to cover.

I think people imagine that whoever is in power is sat there looking at some bank statement thinking “hmmmm...want to give young people bus passes....have to cut something....hmmmm....OK let’s get rid of a few hospitals”

Doesn’t work that way. Think of each decision instead as an investment, not a cost. For example, what is the ROI in giving young people bus passes? More young people from low-income families can travel to work/college. Do I have to explain the benefits of that? Surely not.

What is the ROI in giving Colin, 65, retired from Wiltshire with a house worth £650K and a holiday home in Spain a bus pass? Next to nil.

When a Party announce a policy, ask yourself, “who is this policy intended to benefit, why, and what’s the benefit for Society as a whole”
 
Lentwood said:
Bus Passes for U25s

As soon as a person pops up and says “how is that going to be paid for?” whatever opinion they might offer after that is almost certainly totally irrelevant

You CANNOT compare Government finances to your own finances in the sense that Macroeconomics is not ‘zero-sum’. It’s not like your household finances where you have a certain amount of money to allocate at the end of every month and a certain amount of outgoings to cover.

I think people imagine that whoever is in power is sat there looking at some bank statement thinking “hmmmm...want to give young people bus passes....have to cut something....hmmmm....OK let’s get rid of a few hospitals”

Doesn’t work that way. Think of each decision instead as an investment, not a cost. For example, what is the ROI in giving young people bus passes? More young people from low-income families can travel to work/college. Do I have to explain the benefits of that? Surely not.

What is the ROI in giving Colin, 65, retired from Wiltshire with a house worth £650K and a holiday home in Spain a bus pass? Next to nil.

When a Party announce a policy, ask yourself, “who is this policy intended to benefit, why, and what’s the benefit for Society as a whole”
Click to expand...

You must be new to this thread, they know all the above they just like throwing out Tory catchphrases anyway. Think of it like Tory tourettes with the trigger word of Corbyn.
 
Lentwood said:
Bus Passes for U25s

As soon as a person pops up and says “how is that going to be paid for?” whatever opinion they might offer after that is almost certainly totally irrelevant

You CANNOT compare Government finances to your own finances in the sense that Macroeconomics is not ‘zero-sum’. It’s not like your household finances where you have a certain amount of money to allocate at the end of every month and a certain amount of outgoings to cover.

I think people imagine that whoever is in power is sat there looking at some bank statement thinking “hmmmm...want to give young people bus passes....have to cut something....hmmmm....OK let’s get rid of a few hospitals”

Doesn’t work that way. Think of each decision instead as an investment, not a cost. For example, what is the ROI in giving young people bus passes? More young people from low-income families can travel to work/college. Do I have to explain the benefits of that? Surely not.

What is the ROI in giving Colin, 65, retired from Wiltshire with a house worth £650K and a holiday home in Spain a bus pass? Next to nil.
Click to expand...

Magic money tree it is then.
 
11101 said:
Explained as well as all the other bribes on offer.
Click to expand...

Yes, helping segments of the population financially.:lol:

By this token any public service which helps people cut costs could be described as a bribe.
 
Honest John said:
It's lost revenue
Click to expand...

Which (they'd argue) is offset by the fact it increases social mobility by making transport to and from work easier, giving people more money to invest in the economy.

It's undoubtedly a slightly cynical giveaway to help a segment of the population that votes Labour...but why should they be criticised for that anymore than the Tories are for consistently pandering to their elderly voters?
 
Honest John said:
It's lost revenue
Click to expand...

There's no basis for assuming every applicable person would use the service currently so it's redundant.

The only lost revenue is to the current user base and the cost of supporting increased usage if it rises, which would be limited as buses are always empty anyway.

Besides its putting money back into the pockets of the public so they can spend, isn't that what you Tories love?
 
nickm said:
Magic money tree it is then.
Click to expand...

Maybe Corbyn found a few quid down the back of his sofa? Or has had ' a word' for a horse in the National tomorrow?

On a serious note, the metaphorical 'magic money tree's' do sort of exist in public finance, Government's can raise or re-allocate funds using all sorts of methods in addition to taxes (which is seemingly the only income-source ever discussed - as if every pound we spend has to come out of Joe Public's wallet)

I'm sure you know all of this anyway but probably just don't like Jezza very much!
 
Smores said:
There's no basis for assuming every applicable person would use the service currently so it's redundant.

The only lost revenue is to the current user base and the cost of supporting increased usage if it rises, which would be limited as buses are always empty anyway.

Besides its putting money back into the pockets of the public so they can spend, isn't that what you Tories love?
Click to expand...

£1000 seems extreme anyway. Plenty of people don't use buses that often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.